Silenced truth: 'pacifists' protect tyrants and incite wars

Thursday April 03, 2003 15:00

by RightThinking

(From March 28, 2003: Libertad Digital, Madrid. March 28, 2003: Ambito Iberoamericano Editorial, Madrid (translation from original in Spanish just for you!)) History will record with severity the huge social, human and political cost of the activism of the erroneously named "pacifists"

The so-called "pacifist" movements, articulated by leftists, and their silent accomplice, have decisively contributed to the protection of the most fierce tyrants of the XX and XXI Centuries, since Adolph Hitler and Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il, to Saddam Hussein. With their harmful political formula of "giving in so as not to loose", they paved the way for several of those dictators to increment warmonger attitudes against countries and continents, in addition to enslaving their own people.
Towards the end of the 1930's, it was the English and French "pacifists" who, with the pretext of avoiding war with Germany, pressured the public opinion of their respective countries, to give-in before the annexation of Hitler in Austria and other territories where German was spoken belonging to Czechoslovakia ("Sudentenland"), Poland (Dantzig "corridor"), etc. Those "pacifists" supported their respective Heads of State, Chamberlain and Daladier, in their giving-in attitude before the German despot. It was not in vain when Winston Churchill, the great English statesman, reprimanded Chamberlain by telling him: "Your choice was between shame and war; you chose shame and you will have war". In fact, after so many shameful concessions, peaking with the Munich pact, which legitimately recognized the usurpations of Germany, it invaded Poland, which led to the Second World War, which had a toll of 60 million deaths. During the decade of 1970, the handing over by U.S. government! of several Southeast Asian nations to communists -who unleashed indescribable massacres of millions of innocent civilians, such as in Cambodia- was in most part precipitated by pressures on behalf of "pacifists". Other historical examples could also be mentioned.
During the present, the complex circumstances of war in Iraq do not impede us from pointing out similarities and censurable contradictions of Western "pacifist" movements that, with the pretext of condemning the war, lift up a smoke screen in front of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, in front of the conditions of misery and oppression of the Iraqi people, in front of the danger which said regime represents to regional and international peace. As it has already been denounced, those "pacifist" manifestations which are spread throughout the world were previously articulated in the recent Worldwide Social Forum of Porto Alegre, a gigantic catalyst of revolutionary forces which survived communism.
Those same "pacifists" who cry only with the left eye, do not only keep silence as to the crimes of the Iraqi dictatorial regime, but also as to the repressive onslaught unleashed recently by Fidel Castro against oppositionists and independent journalists; the cruelties of Colombian narco-guerrillas; the violations of political-religious rights in countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea; Christian persecutions in Muslim countries; the pro-Castro despotism of the Venezuelan President Chávez; the fratricidal violence of the ETA, in Spain, etc.
It is symptomatic that in the United States entities that promote anti-war protests, such as "Workers World Party" and "Answer" their façade entity (at a cost of an estimated 200 thousand dollars per protest), have initiatives in their curriculum in support of Castro's Cuba, Saddam's Iraq, and Kim Jong Il's North Korea, as demonstrated by the journalist Dan Springer, of Fox News. In Spain, protests of the erroneously named "pacifists" resort to violence, attacking government party headquarters and causing much destruction to public property. According to a denouncement made in editorial of Libertad Digital, in Spain there is a resurgence of the "Jacobean traditional sectarianism", with "violent methods" used by the "extreme totalitarian left" who are counting on the support, through act or omission, of the United Left and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. In England, Ahmed Chalabi, of the Iraqi National Congress, in exile, denounced that the supposedly pro-peace! activists want to "prolong the life of Saddam and the misery of the Iraqi people". In Italy, journalist Ernesto Galli della Loggia, in a front-page article in the "Corriere della Sera", calls attention to the enormous "capacity" of the so-called "pacifists" in that country to "manipulate reality", using as an example the "massive" use in protests of pictures of the Cuban-Argentinean guerilla "Che" Guevara, who is being presented as a symbol of "pacifism" when in reality, his cruelty made him contrary to peace. As Elio Bromuri, another Italian journalist, Communications Director of Perugia Archdiocese, observed, "pacifist" Italian leaders are guided by "an ideology that only maintains pacifism in its name".
After the emotional climate artificially created by the left (with the collaboration of the media), that clouds reason and common sense, History will, without a doubt, record with severity and indignation the gigantic social, human and political cost of the erroneously named "pacifists". The cause of peace is too important to leave it in their hands.
Lastly, it is important to not confuse the pacifists with the peaceful. Jesus Christ promised to those last mentioned an admirable prize: "You shall be named Children of God". The peaceful ones are those that love true peace, defined by Saint Augustine as "the tranquility of order". On the contrary, if the pacifists speak of peace it is as a pretext to fool and immobilize the peaceful, supporters of order.

save preference

Comments (18 of 18)

Jump To Comment:

Sounds familiar...

by G. Orwell

Thu Apr 03, 2003 15:10

War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.

war solves everything

by DC

Thu Apr 03, 2003 15:45

your comparsion of Iraq 2003 and Germany 1938 has zero credibility. They are not even in the same league. Germany was one of the most powerful countries and armies in the world. Iraq is a small insignificant third world country who have been crippled ecomonically and militarly in the last 12 years.

The extent of the slaughter of their troops in open conflict should make this point even more obvious. probably 50+ iraqi troops killed for every 1 USUK. In fact probably without "friendly fire" incidents it's probably more. And they are the defending army!! You cannot even call it a war!!

Just another pro-war, "it's the only way to solve it" nutter.

correction

Thu Apr 03, 2003 15:48

when I said "you" I was referring to the author of the article and not the poster. Though if one agrees with the article then my comments also apply to them.

The teachings of Christ - The twin evils of Dictators & the U.S. (et al)

by Anonymous

Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:00

If you want to talk about what Jesus Christ spoke about regarding peace, I hope you are not forgetting many of his and God's other most important teachings:-

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Christ never spoke of any circumstance where this is allowable or for good.

"Love Thy Enemies"

“Love Your Neighbor”

“Forgive your enemies”

"If someone hits you on your right cheek, turn and him hit you on the other"

etc. etc.

Regarding your other points, whatever about WWII, I think your examples of such countries as Cambodia – your attributing of the atrocities there to the hands of pacifists is rubbish. The people of Cambodia suffered there equally by the hand of Pol Pot & America. And not much has changed since then, or indeed even before then – the innocent people of the world continue to suffer between the two hands of vicious dictators and the vicious foreign policy of America (and to a lesser extent other Western nations, particularly Britain).

From Pol Pot to Surharto to Saddam Hussein. The exact same scenario applies.

The pacifists you talk about I assume are the ones who come from Western nations. It is very difficult for these pacifists to have direct influence in stopping the horrendous atrocities of the likes of S. Hussein. But do not for a second think they are trying to cover up these atrocities. These atrocities, as with all vicious dictators, are known worldwide, fully accepted and agreed upon.

But on the other side, the hand of the other evil doer is nearly completely UNKNOWN to the general public. It is this hand, which is EQUALLY culpable, that I believe pacifists are trying to highlight. And it is this hand which pacifists can directly change, as these are our “democratically” elected leaders, whom we can oust from power and there by then assert the proper pressure that should be applied on the evil dictators of the world.

Nevertheless, I do not think your point about Saddam in this “particular” instance is futile.

Though the intentions of US/K may be totally self-interested and as such, vicious – the side effect from their evil intents, will be the disposal of Saddam – which may mean that in the long run this war will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Finally, what is your opinion of U.S.? And when I say the U.S. I mean in terms of the “powers” that have run and continue to run it.

by jarhead

Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:03

The so called peace / anti-war protesters are nothing of the sort. They are simply anti-American, anti-capitalism, left wing agitators. Where were they when Russia was carpet bombing Grozny and cluster bombing and napalming civilians? I don't recall the IAWM protesting on the streets. The same applies to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. The North Koreans are making nuclear threats against their neighbours. Imagine the uproar there would be if Israel, for example, made nuclear threats against Syria. I am totally opposed to this current war but I am also opposed to all warfare, wether it be Israeli aggression or Palestinian aggression or Iraqi aggression or whoever. The IAWM is selective about which wars it protests against and it wouldn't do to be against the aggression of leftist or former leftist regimes.

Notice the authors didn't mention Franco

by Shane OCurry - no war but the class war

Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:07

Even allowing for the fact that the article is without historical grounding and strings together distorted fragments very tenuously and is therefore the product of an ignorant mind, are we to believe that the ommission of Franco from the list of tyrants accidental. Deleted from history because it doesn't suit the argument...(Never mind that Pol Pot etc, just like Saddam, were supported by the west when it suited their geo-political agenda)

The Francoist PP, who are in political power in Madrid, referred to advocates of a Basque peace process as "peace terrorists".

Orwellianism indeed.

RightThinker has obviously had his thinking rectified by big brother

Oh for GODS SAKE

by Gaillimhed

Thu Apr 03, 2003 16:13

The charge: Appeasement of a dictator.

Prior to WW2 the dictator being appeased was of course Adolf Hitler. i agree with you thus far. Now consider for a moment; He had the biggest and best equipped Army, he had a hostile and expansionist foreign policy, and threatened to invade smaller weaker powers, which he did. OK

So, who exactly are we appeasing today....who has the biggest best equipped army, who has a hostile and expansionist foireign policy, who has threatened and is currently engaged in invasion of a weaker power.

the only aggressive invader being *appeased* today is GEORGE WW3 BUSH. And just like Hitler in 39 he has a list of countries to invade and he doesnt give a damn what anyone else says.

ThinK
Think
thiiiiink
while you still can.

Perfect Gaillimhed

Thu Apr 03, 2003 17:30

Perfect Galillimhed. Bang on. The appeasement of today's Super Power is amply displayed by our government etc. etc.

I give us 100 more years of thinking, max., and then its time for all of us meet that guy I was on about who was giving out instructions, and for all of us to justify our positions and actions/in-actions. Finally, all arguments will once and for all be sorted on that day...

HO-HUM.........

by wasichu

Thu Apr 03, 2003 17:46

C'mon! The jig is up. Most of the world now is certain that nation-agrandisment is the main motivating factor is US policy.

Blather about "freedom" and "dictators" is just that--blather.

I realized this is secondary school in the US, when I ventured away from the standard school propaganda texts and started reading and thinking for myself.

Though this stuff would go over well with over- educated heartland neo-Nazis in the US.

Right Stinking .... Lie

by kokomero

Thu Apr 03, 2003 18:53

The only parallel between the current situation and WWII is that the US is annexing Iraq by force as the Nazis did Austria and Sudettenland.

What will Bushes Poland be? Iran or Syria, or maybe North Vietnam.

If you want to include the Brits, the Spanish, the Israelis and Co. in this look back to the Axis of Japan & Italy who were happy to divide the spoils with Hitler!

In WWII as at present it is not the citizens or pacifists against war who decide to go or not to go to war. I don't remember a referendum before any of the major conflicts in recorded history. The governments decide and will always decide to go to war ON THEIR OWN!

This behaviour, and by consequence wars, will continue until we have a truly representative system where the people decide on a day-by-day basis ... the technology is here to do it.

You peace lovers are fenian bastards and wog lovers

by pym unfortunate

Thu Apr 03, 2003 20:14

You peace lovers are revolting irish fenian bastards and wog lovers, you should be put in special camps for processing.

crap.

by ipsiphi

Thu Apr 03, 2003 20:59

it's a spin that has been put out by the Pentagon since the beginning.
I wrote of the appeasement of Bush v. appeasement of Saddam last november in response to the first version in español I saw of these ideas.

Total shite.

why didn´t the author put the link to the original article?

after all there are many polyglot readers of IMC ireland. and many who live in the Spanish speaking world.

The idea that the war would have been shorter but more effective if there had been no protest against it is morally repellent and furthermore has no basis in historical fact.

It is in the words of more than one Irish activist an attempt to make pacifists feel "complicit" in the War.

The facts are that very serious people perhaps the best informed of their societies' consistently said and argued since October last year (i seem to remember 27/10/02 being the first transnational mobilisation against war on Iraq) that the US/K entity could not safely prosecute this war.

Nor can they safely prosecute the international War on Terrorism as a result of the damage they have now done to international co-operation and trust.

Nor can they safely guarantee the future stabality of Iraq.

Nor can they safely prosecute the USA ·pax americana· drive for full spectrum dominance in its current phase which is the seeks to guarantee a Washington dominated Global energy supply system.

Nor could they bring down Chavez.

Now maybe they are starting to listen to such serious people who have spent years of their lives behaving as amateurs.

Because we are sadly vindicated.

& finally

They can NOT guarantee that the global solidarity that has emerged as a result of the campaign fought since October last year will fade away once the US/K siezes Bagdhad.

They have lost.
do NOT that is NEVER NEVER EVER
play chess unless you see
checkmate.

meanwhile they slaughter innocents in the name of Democracy, and we shall not forget that, for it is a notion close to our hearts.

To 'G Orwell'

by Irish American

Thu Apr 03, 2003 21:59

Please don't take the name of George in vain.

I suggest you read the Collected Essays and Letters of George Orwell.

Orwell was very much an "anti-pacifist," it was he who said during (the approach of) World War II "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist."

Not to mention that he volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and got a bullet in the neck.

As we say in Spanish...

by Emiliano Zapata

Fri Apr 04, 2003 02:49

I note this was translated from Spanish. Well, translate this too: Vete a la mierda.

As they say in Italian

Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:15

Vafanculo!

That's like something George Bush would say.

by Albo

Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:46

Of course he was! In Orwell's time, annexation and aggression was common. To stop the spread of fascism and "communism", not to mention just the problem of being invaded, you had to fight back!
I don't think he was talking about the people protesting against Hitler's invasions.

But times change. While some of his ideas are still around (esp. doublethink), the methods and goals of the warmakers are different now. At the time pacifism might have been pro-fascism, but now pacifism might be anti-imperialism.

Secondly, don't misinterpret the word, "anti-pacifist". That doesn't mean he hated peace. It just means he was against the pacifist idea that war must never be used whatever the circumstances. I even disagree with this idea.

You have to rise over this idea that it's either one or the other - i.e. (relating back to the current situation) either a tyrannical regime or a bloody war, that there are the pro-Saddam unpatriotic pacifists or anti-Saddam patriotic war-makers. Patriotism doesn't equal War. Peace doesn't equal pro-Saddam.

Just because you are protesting for peace doesn't mean you are unpatriotic or you love Saddam. There are more than two choices. (not just war or dictatorship)

To RightThinking

by VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!

Fri Apr 04, 2003 16:31

cago en su santa comunión y jodo su gato. pero huelo también una rata de este tan llamó RightThinker!Quizá sus convicciones obtienen continuamente más fuerte a causa de las ideas presentadas arriba. Y puede ellos siguen yendo esa manera. Pronto la Estrategia de Lilliput puede comenzar realmente surtir efecto. ¿Engendró alot de la discusión no?
VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!VIVA!

mr orwell.

by iosaf ipsiphi O'as-if

Fri Apr 04, 2003 16:36

barcelona

i recall i started my personal cyber daily contributions to this section of the IMC network here in Ireland from the address

C/Codols 23 x Placa george Orwell
Barcelona.

Now that was for an important reason, I do recall that the first posting wrote of the importance of that little plaza and others in Barcelona.

And I remember the graffiti stencil we did there
.2002
-1984
= 18
and you mathematics are a universal language.

And if you read 1984 today and you are 19 well you understand the weirdness of the Orwellian effect.

Many of you intelectual types have missed a very important point that Mr Orwell long ago past being a journalist, an essayist, a soldier, a marxist, a novelist, a war victim, a war giver, a historian a man living under a false name. Orwell has become an entity. Eric Blair is the internationalist who disliked pacifists. I daresay the maladapt etonian was an unpleasant character in many regards. And a writer who really only lived a short but very influential life.

& there were three other dystopic writers in Europe of that time who produced comparative work.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Silenced truth: 'pacifists' protect tyrants and incite wars

Comments (18 of 18)